Control de Calidad

The purpose of this qualitative research case study was to investigate the perspective teachers hold for the purpose of digital portfolios within their classroom for both General and Special Education students. In addition, the research sought to understand teacher perceptions regarding academic achievement generated through the use of digital when comparing the two populations. The use of digital portfolios within the field of education has been proven to be effective when utilized with Special Education (Clancy & Gardner, 2017; Rao et al., 2016; Wang & Neihart, 2015) and general positive effectives of the practice have also been noted within the literature (Cordier et al., 2016; Demir & Kutlu, 2016; Theodosiadou & Konstantinidis, 2015; Wyk, 2017). However, research did indicate a need for supports in order to achieve positive results (Cirocki & Caparoso, 2016; Gámiz-Sánchez et al., 2016; Mngo & Mngo, 2018; Roman & Soriano, 2015; Yan, 2017). Faravani and Atai (2015) and Skipper and Douglas (2015) noted that human connections and beliefs were the foundation of success for students.

The conceptual framework for the student was further supported by the notion that thinking that learning is influence by the thinking of students, the environment in which they are learning, and the behaviors they exhibit (Schunk, 2012), teachers influence the purpose and implementation of digital portfolios (Niguidula, 2005; Renwick, 2017), and that the tool did have an impact on academic success when implemented effectively (Demir & Kutlu, 2016; Shirvan & Golparvar, 2016; Wyk, 2017). This descriptive case study focused on gathering and analyzing data connected to the conceptual framework and seeking to understand the perspective of teachers on the purpose and academic impact of digital portfolios with both General and Special Education students.

The research questions that guided this study were:

RQ1: What perspective do teachers hold for the purpose of digital portfolios with their general education students in their elementary school classrooms?

RQ2: What perspective do teachers hold for the purpose of digital portfolios with students who qualify for special education services in their elementary school classrooms?

RQ3: What perspective do teachers hold regarding the difference in the level of academic growth associated with the use of a digital portfolio in their classroom between Special Education students and their General Education peers?

The use of a descriptive single case study was essential in understanding the perspective of teachers on the purpose and academic growth created through the utilization of digital

portfolios. Descriptive case studies focus on providing a wholistic picture of a phenomenon (Merriam, 1991) and a single-case study is defined by a specific set of circumstances (Yin, 2018). This study met these two criteria as the participants were part of the same school district and part of the professional development provided by the district during the implementation phase of digital portfolios. The use of this methodology allowed for the research to gain a complete understanding and perspective of teachers.

As the primary and only researcher, it was my role to facilitate the process of data collection and analysis. My professional role as a school administrator and experience as a Special Education teacher provided the foundation for my interest in investigating digital portfolios and further understanding the perspective of teachers. My role as a school

administrator did not influence the data or impact the analysis as no participants were or had previously been under my supervision.

This chapter focuses on providing a description of the data analysis, the results of the research, and the key findings of the study. A description of the sample verifies the population and sampling that was utilized for the research. The methodology and analysis section provide a full understanding of the practices that were utilized and an analysis of questionnaire, interviews, and a reflection tool. A summary of the findings will be presented in relation to the research question. A presentation of the data and results will clearly and coherently answer the research questions. To conclude the chapter, a summary will be provided to highlight and confirm the main points of the findings.

Description of the Sample

The sample population for this research study was comprised of teachers who work in and elementary school setting within a school district located in the Southern portion of the United States. The research was conducted between February 2019 and June 2019. All participants had taken part in district professional development on digital portfolios and were included in the study on a voluntary basis. A list of teachers who participated in the professional development was provided to the researcher by the district and professional contacts helped to establish interview requests. Some of the participants participated in all three phases of the research while others only participated in portions.

Questionnaire sample population. The initial questionnaire was sent to 430 teachers

who participated in the district provided professional development on digital portfolios. Twenty- eight participants responded to the survey. Twenty-two teachers served Special Education students within their classrooms and six of the respondents did not serve Special Education students at the time of the survey. However, those that were not serving Special Education Students at the time of the survey did have experience working with Special Education students

in their classrooms. Twenty-seven of the participants were female and one participant was male. The participants ranged from three to 28 years of teaching experience.

Table 2

Questionnaire Sample Population―Years of Experience

Years of Experience 3 5 6 7 8 11 13 16 18 19 20 21 22 26 28 Total

Number of Participants 1 5 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 28

Interview sample population. Interview requests were sent to all 28 participants who responded to the initial questionnaire; only six participants agreed to participate. The researcher utilized professional contacts to connect with four additional teachers who participated in the digital portfolio professional development; bringing the participant total to 10. All interviews were scheduled at the convenience of the participants. Nine of the interviews were conducted face-to-face and one was conducted through web-based teleconferencing. All participants either had students who received Special Education Services in their classrooms or had served them in the past. All participants in the interview phase were female and ranged from three to 28 years of teaching experience.

Table 3

Interview Sample Population―Years of Experience

Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Years of Experience 19 3 15 18 15 12 16 5 28 15

Reflection tool sample population.

completed by participants who participated in the interviews. However, not all members agreed to continue with this portion of the research; eight participants completed the reflection tool. The reflection tool was emailed to participants immediately after the interview. Participants were

completed the reflection tool. All participants who participated in this phase were female and ranged from three to 19 years of teaching experience.

Table 4

Reflection Tool Sample Population―Years of Experience

Participant 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10

Years of Experience 19 3 15 18 15 16 5 15

Methodological Grounding―Descriptive Case Study

The focus of this research study was to understand the perspective teachers hold

regarding the purpose of digital portfolios and the academic success of both General and Special Education students. The data presented within the literature review provided a foundation for the conceptual framework that guided this study. Existing literatures noted the use of digital

portfolios as a positive practice from the student perspective (Assaggaf & Bamahra, 2016; Wyk, 2017) and teacher viewpoint (Atjonen, 2014; Yastibas & Cepik, 2014). In addition, the role teachers hold and the purpose they define for the use of digital portfolios as an instructional tool is essential to effective implementation of digital portfolios (Niguidula, 2005; Renwick, 2017). The literature review further provided evidence of the need to further understand the perspective of teachers as they reflect upon the purpose of digital with both General and Special Education students and the academic impact generated in academic growth between the two subgroups through the implementation of the instructional tool.

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) further influenced this research study by providing the theoretical framework as the perspective teachers hold has the power to influence the

effectiveness of digital portfolios as an instructional tool. Schunk (2012) noted the impact one’s own thinking, the environment, the behaviors of other’s have on the engagement of learning.

The conceptual and theoretical frameworks provide a purpose and collaboratively influenced this descriptive case study as rich data was sought to understand the perspective of teachers on the purpose, they have set for the use digital portfolios within their classrooms for General and Special Education students and to gain an understand of how they believe the tool effects academic achievement for the two subgroups.

Methodological Strategies

The research methodology utilized within the study was set using a single descriptive case study design. The use of this methodological design was imperative as the research sought to understand the perspective of classroom teachers. Merriam (1991) noted the use of

descriptive study as the methodology of understand the whole. To better understand the perspective of teacher, the data for the study was gathered through the instrument of a

questionnaire, interviews, and a reflection tool. The research began once approval was provided to the researcher from the Institutional Review Board in February 2019 and concluded in June of 2019. A step-by-step description of each portion of the research process will be outlined in the subsequent sections discussing each of the research instructions.

Questionnaire. The questionnaire, located in Appendix C, was emailed out to a list of teachers that had participated in the district professional development on digital portfolios. The questionnaire served as the first phase of the research process and was open to participants for a five-week period. An initial email and request were sent to participants in mid-February of 2019. In order to encourage additional participation, follow up emails were sent in early and mid-March with the questionnaire closing at the end of March 2019. At the time of the closing, over 30 participants had participated in the questionnaire; some of the data was incomplete and

could not be utilized within the research. Thus, the total number of participants within this phase of the research was 28 participants.

Each participant was asked to reflect on their use of digital portfolios within their classroom as the responded to eight questions. The questions alternated between who teachers use digital portfolios with their General Education students and their Special Education students. Questions one and three focused on the perspective teacher hold for the purpose of digital

portfolios when used with General Education students; while questions two and four sought to understand the purpose for Special Education students. In the same regard, questions five and seven focused on the perspective of academic growth using digital portfolios for General Education students while six and eight focused on academic growth for Special Education students. Throughout the questionnaire, the questions repeated themselves while replacing the population the teachers were asked to reflect upon. For example, question one asked “What do you believe is the purpose of digital portfolios in your classroom when used with General Education students?” The question was then repeated but replace General Education students with Special Education students in question two.

Interviews. The participants from the questionnaire were the intended audience for the interview phase of the research. Interview participants within the median range of years of experience were originally contacted by the researcher for the interview portion of the research. The response and participation rate to the initial request was low and prompted interview

requests to all questionnaire participants. While this did help increase participation, the research had to rely on professional contacts to increase the number of participants in the interview phase to 10. Six of the participants in the interview portion participated in the original questionnaire while four were garnered through professional contacts. The original location of the interviews

was to be held in each of the participants classrooms. However, one interview was held via web- based conferencing at the request of the participant.

Each interview lasted for a minimum of 45 minutes with some exceeding an hour and was based on the questions located in Appendix D. Each interview was double recorded and transcribed by the researcher. Creswell (2013) noted that for the data to be credible, member checking must be completed. Thus, the process of member checking was utilized by emailing each participant the transcript and asking them to confirm their perspectives were captured accurately. The questions within the interview process aligned with the conceptual framework and were used as a basis gain a further understanding of the perspective of the participants. Each question was worded in a way that would not lead the participants, as described in Chapter 3 (Yin, 2018).

The first question asked in each interview allowed for teachers to discuss the general purpose of how they use digital portfolios within their classrooms; this data was incorporated in to understanding teacher perspective of the purpose of digital portfolios for both General and Special Education students. The following four questions focused on understanding the purpose and the academic growth teacher believe the instructional tool has when utilized with the General Education population. The final four questions provided the perspective of the purpose and academic growth when using digital portfolios with Special Education students. The questions specific to General and Special Education students were the exact same other than a change in the population being reflected upon.

Reflection tool. The document review portion was a reflection tool participants responded to as they reviewed one digital portfolio from a General Education student and one from a Special Education student in their classroom. A copy of the reflection tool can be located

in Appendix E. The purpose of this method of data collection was to gather additional insight to perspective teachers held for the purpose and academic gains when using digital portfolios with the two different student populations. The tool was completed view Qualtricsnd the link was emailed to participants immediately following the interview.

The original organization of the questions asked participants to volley back and forth between the General Education and Special Education student’s digital portfolio. However, the researcher reorganized them allowing the participant to reflect fully on the General Education student’s digital portfolio and then on the Special Education students. The same eight questions were used to prompt reflection for both digital portfolio reflections. Questions one and five focused on gather data on the perspective teacher hold for the use of digital portfolios and the three middle questions focused on understanding their view of how digital portfolios effect growth. The initial email for the reflection tool was followed up by a reminder email as needed for each participant.

Analysis

The research for this descriptive case study was conducted through three methods: a questionnaire, interviews, and document review of a reflection tool. The three points of data not only provided different points of view on the perspective teachers hold for digital portfolios but also allowed for triangulation. Patton (2009) shared that triangulation allows for validity to be confirmed within the data while providing a deeper level of understanding. Coding was used throughout the data analysis as a way to determine the patterns and trends within the data (Merriam, 1991). Saldaña’s (2015) two-cycle coding process utilized for the analysis of each piece of data. The first cycle within each data set allowed for themes or connections to be drawn

through descriptive coding; while the second cycle brought the data within a matrix allowing for broader conclusions (Yin, 2018).

The final step within the analysis process was for the data to be compiled in alignment of the research questions. Saldaña (2015) shared that pattern coding could be used to regroup data in new sets to build understanding. The data from the questionnaire, interviews, and reflection tool were rearranged and organized within the matrix by research question in order to provide interconnections and themes to emerge within the three sets of data. The interconnections existing within the data formed a more wholistic view and provided the opportunity to form generalizations.

Coding. The coding process and analysis for the research began at the completion of the questionnaire phase. I began by reviewing the responses provided by the participants to gain an initial understanding. Merriam (1991) concluded data analysis is a cyclical process which bring clarity to the research; thus, I began the second review of the data with general themes and ideas in mind. The code I began utilizing for the data were in line with Renwick (2017) and Niguidula (2005) purpose’s for digital portfolios in mind. The responses from the participants were

organized by question into a spreadsheet and the code was identified for the general themes appearing within the data. The themes that appeared within the data were

documentation/growth, reflections, showcase, warehouse, confidence/pride, applying to college, communication, assessment, and prepared for the digital world. In order to gain full perspective of teachers when they were reflecting on Special Education students, the codes of Same as Gen Ed, ownership, differentiation, and IEP Goals were applied.

The prompts within the questionnaire that focused on understanding the perspective of teachers on the difference in academic impact digital portfolios have on General and Special

Education students required the use of a code of impact and no impact. As the data was

reviewed, it became obvious that teachers could not remove the purpose for which they used the digital portfolio from the effect they believed the digital portfolio was having on student

academic success. In order to accommodate the trend, I had to apply the codes previously mentioned in order to draw a complete picture from the data. Before moving forward, I once again reviewed each piece of data and reflected on the codes which had been identified to confirm whether the data was wholly represented; additional codes were added as needed.

My understanding of the perspective of teachers started to formulate through the coding process. However, I was lacking an understanding on how the data connected within the research questions. Reorganizing the coded data from the questionnaire to align with the research questions was utilized to draw further understanding. The action allowed for correlations and trends within the questionnaire to became noticeable. To further gain an understanding of the data, the frequency of each code’s occurrence was tabulated; providing further understanding on the perspective of the teachers.

The data from the questionnaire was set aside as I began to review the interview data. The analysis of this data began by reviewing the 10 recorded interviews. The next step within the process was to transcribe each interview. The interviews were all transcribed using

Microsoft Word and were completed as I reviewed the recordings for a second time. The recordings were paused and reset as needed to ensure accurate transcription. The transcription was reviewed once again before being sent to the participant for review. The coding process for the transcripts bean once they were approved by the participant.

The codes utilized within this portion of the research were carried over from the